Evidence of a breakdown of our fundamental rights

Our founding fathers, fear of government control arranged to hold all government officials to account and to the branches of government separate, maintain the importance of a jury of the litigants bad laws and a usurpation of protecting justice, and warned us not to our offered trade away freedom for the security of the government in return.

This article shows how these terms have - especially with regard to fundamental rights for fathers within the family brokenCourt.

1) Right surgically removed traded the security benefits:

Especially during the second half of the 20th Century, the people will allow the government to have to seduce with the government promised benefits. Deliver the government has allowed to grow to unimaginable size, strength, and control over every aspect of our lives. The octopus has the nature more than one in five citizens directly placed in the government want to deal with more and receive special connection withsome facet of the government for their payments.

In order to achieve sustainable growth and power, the government select groups of citizens for certain privileges, which are obviously targeted at the expense of non-selected groups. A large number of connected brokers, agents, and the privileged citizens of government initiatives have benefited special interest groups that lobby for more benefits at the expense of other groups not so well connected.

This government benefits Special Interest Groupsoverwhelming influence - at the expense of taxpayers - the elected branches of government and through them the control and influence over the judiciary. They seek their own relief at the expense of others, and are able to secure the rights to oppress others, but their power and the incestuous relationships between the various branches of government. Their dominance allows them to set the tone at all levels of society rather than the people must also be artificially benefit and meet Requirement of the government in their lives.

2) deterioration in the legal process and the loss of the scrutiny of the jury:

In fact, powerful interest groups - especially those who can directly support the government - by law is dangerous to push for the fundamental rights of nonfavored classes of people. Sign laws are an example of the no wrongdoing, requires robs men of all their rights and puts it to law enforcement for the never a real> Criminal act "just pretended offenses" - as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Juries are not to judge all of their right to the right and informed of the facts during a trial - an important protection against bad laws by our founding fathers. Juries have ruled in the family court, if the largest transfer of wealth occurs and the stage for enormous violation of due process and fundamental rights against fathers.

Enormous loss of privacy and rights of this impliesOccur in the family court as well as fake emergencies such as war and several years of which must "know" by the government. Rampant plea bargaining - a form of modern torture or coercion in criminal and civil cases - forces innocent people to be afraid of court that excessive sanctions an unjust, so they cop a plea. The Salem Witch Trials atmosphere is back in our court system in more ways than ever before.

Criminal sanctions such as detention - without the required imposed forProcess for civil contempt and criminal contempt. The writing of habeous body was lost to a great extent in federal bureaucracy. Defendants can receive up to six months in jail without trial, and certainly without a hearing before a jury.

3) The accountability of state officials - particularly in the fields of law is almost impossible. The judges have created absolute immunity for themselves, no matter what their offense as they move across a court. Aid to the court and lawyers are veryso almost everyone can take protected perfidy of them no redress can be of any impact operationally feasible.

4) separation of areas of public administration:

Total collapse of the targeted separation of government branches has caused tyrannical control of the court by special interest groups - like most clearly in divorce suits.

Family Court shall direct the extortion of money from the fathers of their children illegally in the support section to "disadvantaged child." However, assigningthis support collection to the State's Department of Revenue (DOR) will help the DOR funds supported by federal funds. The DOR will pay money directly to the family again very court that refused to injustice of the father his children so as to extort money from him. This violates the intent of the separation of branches.

Ironically, it is the perversion of equal rights legislation of the 1960s, to create new rights, such as phony affirmative action, harassment and abuse laws for disadvantagedGroup rights that the engine and interest groups, the protection of fundamental rights has created undermined for all.

What Are My Rights When a Police Officer Wants to Search My Vehicle?

To answer this question, and a number of others, that I address in the coming days, we begin with a quote from the Constitution of the United States - 4th Change:

The right of the people to be in their persons, houses, secure papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and make no warrants, but upon probable cause by oath or affirmation, particularly But the place to be searched describes, and the persons or things tobe confiscated.

Now the language is very difficult and is definitely not written in plain language with which each of us spoke a day, so let me rephrase it in a way that more readable and understandable;

A person, his or her home, documentation, and personal items may not search or possessed for an inappropriate purpose, the government (). In addition, a warrant is required and can only be issued if probable cause is supported by someoneSwearing to the veracity of his statement as presented to a judge, and the affidavit must specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be taken into account.

So, to this question, I use my experience as a former cop and a criminal defender. Let me describe a scenario that begin each of us to witness almost daily. You drive on the highway and a car pulled to the shoulder of a roadand behind it is a black and white car with flashing red and blue lights. An officer stands at the window of the vehicle, in conversation with the driver, who is the sole tenant. The officer tells the driver that he wants to search the vehicle. What's happening?

The general rule: An officer may stop and automobile clubs, if an officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist has violated a traffic law. As soon as the vehicle pulled to the side of the road, the FourthAmendment allows the officer to the interior of the vehicle by is, through the Windows Search on This is the "visible" or "plain sight" rule, developed in case law and is part of the "auto exception" to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment.

However, the trunk of a vehicle can not be searched unless the officer has probable reason to believe that it contains contraband or the placement of criminal activity, and is similar to that officer did not reachLook in sealed containers or a locked glove box unless it is the same type of probable cause exists. If the vehicle is secured, its contents can be inventoried without a warrant, enter, including the contents of the trunk and container.

The rationale for authorizing warrantless searches of cars is that the mobility of vehicles, drivers can operate with incriminating evidence in the time it would take the police to escape in order to secure a search warrant would. The Court has held thata person expects less privacy in a car than at home, and when one thinks about it, this is reasonable, go on the road in a vehicle that everyone, not just an officer, can look to see through the windows and, what is inside.

As the driver of the vehicle, you can do a few things:

1) The consent to search when you have absolutely nothing to hide or conceal the vehicle and want to speed up the process or

2) refuses to allow the officer to searchVehicle.

If you choose to refuse the officer looking at the application, you should ask the officer if you are in prison, and if you're not, why he or she will look for your vehicle. However, the officials can not provide a complete answer to the question of why he or she will not ask, looking for space. Denying is not looking for an officer to request an admission of guilt, even though the officer can tell you that if you have nothing to hide, you should make the search.

The officer can insist onSearching your car. Clearly indicate, "I am not given the consent to do this search," but that instructs the officer. Again and again, but politely and firmly insist that you do not consent to the search because the probability of the statement is recorded large, at least among the majority of department policy. This recording is in a later trial of inestimable value, should they arise. But no matter what you do, do not interfere with the search and do not touch the officials as one of these actionsyou probably get arrested.

In addition, the officer in the patrol car, you can place or even you have handcuffs and sitting on the sidewalk, while conducting the search. Again, this does not mean you are under arrest, but is probably as "officer safety" tactics are known. This usually occurs when there is only one officer and several occupants of a vehicle or if the official knows that backup is not in the vicinity. If you make the officer handcuffed, unable to resist DO, and a reason for the arrestThem.

Another situation that may arise is that an officer has to get out the occupants from the vehicle because he goes looking for her. This kind of search is an on probable cause. For example, when the officer approaches a vehicle and a smell, says that "training and experience," he or she is marijuana or other illegal substance, he has not received the consent to search the vehicle. But, the officer may ask for consent, because then there is little scope for the search later electionswith the exception of a claim that the search was not voluntary or freely given ... This means that the search was forced. In this situation, even if you refuse to consent, the officer may search the vehicle anyway. Even if this does not happen to resist and do not create problems. You always have the challenge of the search in court and they were more cooperative (in the following instructions), the better result you can get later.

The information contained in this article information is not specific to any state and if younotice that was you or your vehicle or property searched or seized, you should contact without delay, a defense lawyer if you believe that your rights have been violated. A good defender is in a position, your questions about what happened, and if you answer a legitimate claim or case. And, it is very important that you tell your lawyer what happened as quickly as possible, especially if you are advised to chargeas a result of the search because the evidence is found for it, as a result of an illegal search are likely to be excluded from proceedings against you.